I’ve been surprisingly ambivalent about the upcoming presidential election. It’s been hard to get excited about either candidate, but the third and final debate really highlighted the stark differences between George Bush and John Kerry.
What follows are nothing more than a few basic questions I have regarding the major issues as I see them and how each candidate approaches them. How others answer the questions will depend on how they view the issues.
First off, let’s get Iraq out of the way. We can argue whether we should be there or not. But the fact is, we’re there and we had better win or we’ll be in a world of hurt.
So who has the better plan? Both say they’ll stay the course. John Kerry says he’ll bring more nations on board. The question is, can he? France, Germany and Russia are adamant about staying out, as is Canada. Japan hasn’t had a military adventure since WWII. That pretty much eliminates the major western powers.
Like it or not, it looks like we’ll have to win this on our own. That means sticking it out when things get tough. One candidate believes in what we’re doing, one doesn’t. Who do I believe is most likely to see it through? Advantage Bush.
Regarding the budget deficit, neither candidate is talking about the impact their proposals will have on it. But the nonpartisan Concord Coalition is. This budget watchdog group has found that both will widen the deficit by about $1.3 trillion over the next ten years.
The difference lies in how they arrive at those numbers. Nearly all of President Bush’s deficit is due to tax cuts already enacted. A mere $82 billion arises from new spending. On the other hand, more than sixty percent, around $771 billion, of Senator Kerry’s deficit is due to increased government spending. That means a government that is 33% bigger than it is today. Or closer to home, one that will cost the average family of four about an extra $10,000 to support.
So basically it comes down to whether I prefer smaller or larger government. If there is going to be a deficit, would I prefer it’s because the government is taking less in taxes or because it is spending more on programs? Advantage Bush.
On the economy, GDP is up 4.8 percent in the last year. Unemployment is down, inflation is tame despite rising oil prices, while investment in technology and capital goods, imports and exports are all showing double digit gains.
George Bush inherited an economy that looked eerily similar to the one Herbert Hoover inherited in 1929 – an overheated economy that doubled in the prior decade and an irrational stock market that had quadrupled during that time. But whereas Hoover’s response to a crashing stock market and slowing economy threw us into the Great Depression, with 25 percent unemployment, under Bush we experienced the mildest recession on record (some economists even question whether we’ve had a recession).
What did Hoover do differently that led to the Great Depression? Unlike Bush, who cut taxes, Hoover raised taxes to offset declining government revenues and maintain surpluses, while enacting protectionist measures to save American jobs from overseas competition. What has John Kerry proposed? Higher taxes to offset declining government revenues and protectionist measures to save American jobs from overseas competition. They say those who don’t learn from history are doomed to repeat it. Fortunately, the man currently in the White House learned from history. Apparently his opponent hasn’t. Advantage Bush.
On healthcare, both candidates admit that costs are soaring. Neither importing drugs from Canada nor limiting lawsuits address the fundamental problem, namely that we are getting older and refuse to accept anything less than Cadillac care. John Kerry’s approach includes a number of new spending initiatives to cover more people. George Bush wants to involve the patient in purchasing decisions through health savings accounts in the hope that increased awareness of the true cost will force prices down. Furthermore, he wants to make it easier for small businesses and individuals to form groups so they can enjoy the risk-sharing that large corporations do.
Bottom line is that we already spend forty-two percent more per person on healthcare than any other nation. Spending even more is not the answer. If anything, it merely adds fuel to the fire since the simple law of supply and demand states that as more dollars are made available, prices goes up.
Therefore, the question becomes what is the better course of action – spending more or lowering costs? No doubt, it’s lowering costs. Whose policies are more likely to achieve that end? Advantage Bush.
On social security, Kerry has suggested a wait-and-see approach, while the president prefers acting now by giving workers control over a portion of their contributions. Here, it’s a matter of whether I trust government or myself with my future and whether I think we can afford to wait. With the first of the baby-boomers turning sixty next year, waiting is not an option. Advantage Bush.
On education, Kerry says we’re not spending enough, Bush says we’re not expecting enough. So, do I believe higher spending or higher expectations will get more immediate results? I’ve seen time and again the power of expectations. People consistently rise to meet them. Advantage Bush.
In the end, the differences are pretty clear. In Iraq, it’s a question of who’s most likely to see it through. At home, it’s a choice between big or small government, more spending or lower taxes. John Kerry has made some very tantalizing promises. It’s easy to look at them on the surface and say, boy that sure sounds good. But as with everything, there’s no such thing as a free lunch. It’s like the difference between parents and grandparents – grandparents promise you what you want, parents give you what you need.
So which is more important – being promised what we want, or getting what we need? Advantage Bush.
10/24/2004
10/22/2004
An Endorsement For Low Voter Turnout
Thanksgiving Day, 1980. The Chicago Bears are marching down the field late in the fourth quarter against my hometown Detroit Lions. Our defense is helpless to stop them. Suddenly, my Aunt Sue – my grandmother’s sister – yells out “Why don’t they put in Billy Sims!?!”
Well, Aunt Sue, Billy Sims is a running back. He doesn’t play defense.
Clearly, no one would ever want my Aunt Sue calling plays for the Lions – or any team for that matter. But just twenty-three days earlier she cast her vote in that year’s presidential election. Unfortunately, her knowledge of the issues was comparable to what she knew about football. But whereas her involvement in choosing plays from the sideline would be seen as a disaster, somehow her vote is seen as a triumph of democracy.
I don’t get that. It’s never bothered me that nearly fifty percent of our eligible voters neglect to turn up at the polls. They just might vote for Billy Sims.
Don’t get me wrong, every adult citizen of the United States should be entitled and encouraged to participate in our democratic process. I’m quite sure I’ll choke up standing in line to vote next Tuesday. There is something special about a presidential election, as our diverse electorate – young and old, black and white, rich and poor, professional and working class – go about the business of choosing who will hold the most powerful position on this planet.
It is the elegant irony of democracy. You and I – everyday people in everyday lives, so often made to feel so powerless – hold the reins to the presidency in our hands. Yet, part of the elegance lies in the fact that while one may vote, one doesn’t have to. That fact serves democracy well, for it weeds out those who either do not understand or do not care enough to cast an informed vote.
An uninformed or ill-informed vote serves no one. At best, it’s based upon sound bite advertising. At worst, it’s a game of eenie-meenie-miney-moe. I’m sorry, but I want a little more thought behind the selection of the leader of the free world.
In an election as close as this year’s promises to be, however, it will likely be those “close-your-eyes-and-punch-a-chad” votes that will make the difference. Should that make us feel better about democracy? Probably not. In fact, it’s probably going to land us back in court again this year.
Parenthetically, that leads to my one prediction for the upcoming election – thanks to the almost inevitable litigation we can expect, come the morning of Wednesday, November 3rd we will not know who the next president will be. But I digress.
There are lots of reasons people choose not to vote. Some don’t believe their vote will make a difference. If the last election did not dispel that notion, nothing will. They should vote. Some find it hard for various reasons – illness, mobility, transportation, etc. – to get to the polls. We rightfully make it easier for them to vote. But some just don’t care. Let them stay home.
I’ve often joked that it’s no problem that fifty percent of the population stays home on election day because half the population are clueless. We just have to hope the right half stays home. Ok, so it’s not the world’s greatest joke, but then again, fifty percent turnout isn’t the world’s greatest problem.
[Footnote: We did not know who had won the presidency when we woke up on November 3, 2004. It took a while for Ohio to sort out its own mess.]
Well, Aunt Sue, Billy Sims is a running back. He doesn’t play defense.
Clearly, no one would ever want my Aunt Sue calling plays for the Lions – or any team for that matter. But just twenty-three days earlier she cast her vote in that year’s presidential election. Unfortunately, her knowledge of the issues was comparable to what she knew about football. But whereas her involvement in choosing plays from the sideline would be seen as a disaster, somehow her vote is seen as a triumph of democracy.
I don’t get that. It’s never bothered me that nearly fifty percent of our eligible voters neglect to turn up at the polls. They just might vote for Billy Sims.
Don’t get me wrong, every adult citizen of the United States should be entitled and encouraged to participate in our democratic process. I’m quite sure I’ll choke up standing in line to vote next Tuesday. There is something special about a presidential election, as our diverse electorate – young and old, black and white, rich and poor, professional and working class – go about the business of choosing who will hold the most powerful position on this planet.
It is the elegant irony of democracy. You and I – everyday people in everyday lives, so often made to feel so powerless – hold the reins to the presidency in our hands. Yet, part of the elegance lies in the fact that while one may vote, one doesn’t have to. That fact serves democracy well, for it weeds out those who either do not understand or do not care enough to cast an informed vote.
An uninformed or ill-informed vote serves no one. At best, it’s based upon sound bite advertising. At worst, it’s a game of eenie-meenie-miney-moe. I’m sorry, but I want a little more thought behind the selection of the leader of the free world.
In an election as close as this year’s promises to be, however, it will likely be those “close-your-eyes-and-punch-a-chad” votes that will make the difference. Should that make us feel better about democracy? Probably not. In fact, it’s probably going to land us back in court again this year.
Parenthetically, that leads to my one prediction for the upcoming election – thanks to the almost inevitable litigation we can expect, come the morning of Wednesday, November 3rd we will not know who the next president will be. But I digress.
There are lots of reasons people choose not to vote. Some don’t believe their vote will make a difference. If the last election did not dispel that notion, nothing will. They should vote. Some find it hard for various reasons – illness, mobility, transportation, etc. – to get to the polls. We rightfully make it easier for them to vote. But some just don’t care. Let them stay home.
I’ve often joked that it’s no problem that fifty percent of the population stays home on election day because half the population are clueless. We just have to hope the right half stays home. Ok, so it’s not the world’s greatest joke, but then again, fifty percent turnout isn’t the world’s greatest problem.
[Footnote: We did not know who had won the presidency when we woke up on November 3, 2004. It took a while for Ohio to sort out its own mess.]
10/08/2004
There Ain't Gonna Be No Draft
Is there a draft in here? One would think so with all the rumor and speculation flying around talk radio and the internet that the federal government is ready to begin a military draft shortly after the election.
The rumors are based upon several developments – two bills in Congress to reinstate the draft, reports that the Selective Service System is advertising for people to serve on local draft boards, the president’s $26 million budget request for the SSS and the belief that our military is stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Take heart, people. A military draft taking place anytime soon is about as likely as Michael Moore voting for George Bush.
First, nothing would hamstring our military options in the war on terror – or any necessary military action – more than a universal draft. There is a huge psychological difference between sending professional, volunteer soldiers into combat and sending the nineteen year-old kid next door against his wishes. Public pressure to avoid any and all conflict would rise exponentially if we started drafting our sons and daughters.
That alone makes a draft untenable. If the president and the Pentagon think public support for our engagement in the Middle East is shaky now, a draft would send it into the dumper. Public fear and outrage would accompany any military move. And our leaders and our enemies both know that. We’d be doing ourselves no favor in limiting our options that way.
As for the bills in Congress, the Senate and House versions were introduced by Ernest Hollings and Charles Rangel, respectively. Both are Democrats. How convenient that they are now cited as evidence that the president is secretly planning to start the draft immediately after the election. It’s a political ploy so blatant that it’s almost laughable. Tellingly, Rangel voted against his own bill when the House killed it last week in a 402—2 vote.
Regarding the call for draft board volunteers, the boards were set up during the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, with terms of twenty years. Those positions began to go vacant as the terms expired and the Selective Service System has been working to fill them ever since.
Finally, while it’s true that President Bush asked for $26 million for the Selective Service in 2005, it is the same amount he asked for in 2003 and 2004. In fact, it represents the entire budget for the Selective Service. Furthermore, the Office of Management and Budget is projecting a three-percent cut in staffing for the SSS next year. That would hardly indicate a draft is imminent.
Bottom line, it’s election time. Operatives on both sides will gladly disseminate what could charitably called misinformation to obscure reality and sway public opinion. The best defense against such tactics is to become as well informed as possible. But in a world where large numbers of voters get their political news from Jay Leno and Saturday Night Live, that may be asking a bit much.
On the bright side, the same forces that make spreading such rumors so inviting are the same ones that make them ever becoming reality so unlikely. Opponents of the war know a draft would be highly unpopular. But then, so do the people in charge. To start a draft would be political suicide. Therein, at least, democracy still works. A draft ain’t gonna happen.
The rumors are based upon several developments – two bills in Congress to reinstate the draft, reports that the Selective Service System is advertising for people to serve on local draft boards, the president’s $26 million budget request for the SSS and the belief that our military is stretched too thin in Iraq and Afghanistan.
Take heart, people. A military draft taking place anytime soon is about as likely as Michael Moore voting for George Bush.
First, nothing would hamstring our military options in the war on terror – or any necessary military action – more than a universal draft. There is a huge psychological difference between sending professional, volunteer soldiers into combat and sending the nineteen year-old kid next door against his wishes. Public pressure to avoid any and all conflict would rise exponentially if we started drafting our sons and daughters.
That alone makes a draft untenable. If the president and the Pentagon think public support for our engagement in the Middle East is shaky now, a draft would send it into the dumper. Public fear and outrage would accompany any military move. And our leaders and our enemies both know that. We’d be doing ourselves no favor in limiting our options that way.
As for the bills in Congress, the Senate and House versions were introduced by Ernest Hollings and Charles Rangel, respectively. Both are Democrats. How convenient that they are now cited as evidence that the president is secretly planning to start the draft immediately after the election. It’s a political ploy so blatant that it’s almost laughable. Tellingly, Rangel voted against his own bill when the House killed it last week in a 402—2 vote.
Regarding the call for draft board volunteers, the boards were set up during the Iranian hostage crisis in 1979, with terms of twenty years. Those positions began to go vacant as the terms expired and the Selective Service System has been working to fill them ever since.
Finally, while it’s true that President Bush asked for $26 million for the Selective Service in 2005, it is the same amount he asked for in 2003 and 2004. In fact, it represents the entire budget for the Selective Service. Furthermore, the Office of Management and Budget is projecting a three-percent cut in staffing for the SSS next year. That would hardly indicate a draft is imminent.
Bottom line, it’s election time. Operatives on both sides will gladly disseminate what could charitably called misinformation to obscure reality and sway public opinion. The best defense against such tactics is to become as well informed as possible. But in a world where large numbers of voters get their political news from Jay Leno and Saturday Night Live, that may be asking a bit much.
On the bright side, the same forces that make spreading such rumors so inviting are the same ones that make them ever becoming reality so unlikely. Opponents of the war know a draft would be highly unpopular. But then, so do the people in charge. To start a draft would be political suicide. Therein, at least, democracy still works. A draft ain’t gonna happen.
10/01/2004
Sink or swim, It's Your Choice
This is the tale of two young women and personal responsibility. Both came to work for me not long out of high school. Both had diplomas from the same school, both were single, childless and white. I make that point only to demonstrate that their circumstances at that moment in time were about as identical as could be.
One sorted clothes, the other scrubbed shirt collars. Neither job took much skill, and their pay of six dollars an hour reflected that. Both did their jobs well and both were pleasant enough. It would be tempting to say they were in the same boat, but in reality they were on different tracks that would take them in completely opposite directions.
One – the collar scrubber – decided early on not to have kids until she was ready, if ever. She set goals for her career, her finances and her life. And she wrote them down. One – to skydive by the age of twenty-five – resulted in the dumbest incentive plan ever devised. But that’s a story for another time.
When she sought more of a challenge, I readily offered to make her my bookkeeper – despite the fact that she didn’t know a debit from a credit or a computer mouse from Mickey Mouse. She had desire and attitude, which is really all one ever needs to succeed.
And succeed she did. Her pay more than tripled in eight years. Not only did she learn computing and accounting, she went on to get her associates degree, focusing on business, finance and computers. She maxed out her Roth IRA contributions from the start. When we offered a retirement plan, she maxed her contributions there, too. Having started saving at age twenty, she was on track to have over $3 million by the age of sixty-five.
Last December she told me this would be her last year because she planned to start her own business (another goal she had set). Though ready to leave in July, she committed to stay through the year because she had promised to do so. There is only one word to describe such a person – winner.
Contrast that with the other woman. When offered more responsibility, she declined. She went on to have a baby, father unknown. Two years later, she was pregnant again, still no husband. Though we were offering health insurance by then, she never signed up because the twelve dollar-a-week contribution was too expensive for her.
She quit before the baby came so that Medicaid would pay for her delivery. I’ve neither seen nor heard from her in five years, but word is that she now has at least three kids. Though she wasn’t on our payroll, I suspect that we’ve all helped to pay her bills through our taxes.
There are those who would look at the struggling mother and argue that we need to show compassion. We need to provide food, shelter and healthcare to one who is so down on their luck. And in a vacuum, it would be tough to disagree. But one has to wonder at what point our benevolence might become counter-productive, thereby enabling such self-destructive choices.
Bob Seger once sang that "life is like a big river – sink or swim depends on you." So true. Where some see victims and survivors, others see winners and losers. More often than not, it’s a result of personal choices. It’s a lesson I plan to teach my kids. And this tale of two women is certain to be part of the curriculum.
=============
Note: This piece generated a lot of feedback, both pro and con. I addressed the negative response in the piece that can be read here.
One sorted clothes, the other scrubbed shirt collars. Neither job took much skill, and their pay of six dollars an hour reflected that. Both did their jobs well and both were pleasant enough. It would be tempting to say they were in the same boat, but in reality they were on different tracks that would take them in completely opposite directions.
One – the collar scrubber – decided early on not to have kids until she was ready, if ever. She set goals for her career, her finances and her life. And she wrote them down. One – to skydive by the age of twenty-five – resulted in the dumbest incentive plan ever devised. But that’s a story for another time.
When she sought more of a challenge, I readily offered to make her my bookkeeper – despite the fact that she didn’t know a debit from a credit or a computer mouse from Mickey Mouse. She had desire and attitude, which is really all one ever needs to succeed.
And succeed she did. Her pay more than tripled in eight years. Not only did she learn computing and accounting, she went on to get her associates degree, focusing on business, finance and computers. She maxed out her Roth IRA contributions from the start. When we offered a retirement plan, she maxed her contributions there, too. Having started saving at age twenty, she was on track to have over $3 million by the age of sixty-five.
Last December she told me this would be her last year because she planned to start her own business (another goal she had set). Though ready to leave in July, she committed to stay through the year because she had promised to do so. There is only one word to describe such a person – winner.
Contrast that with the other woman. When offered more responsibility, she declined. She went on to have a baby, father unknown. Two years later, she was pregnant again, still no husband. Though we were offering health insurance by then, she never signed up because the twelve dollar-a-week contribution was too expensive for her.
She quit before the baby came so that Medicaid would pay for her delivery. I’ve neither seen nor heard from her in five years, but word is that she now has at least three kids. Though she wasn’t on our payroll, I suspect that we’ve all helped to pay her bills through our taxes.
There are those who would look at the struggling mother and argue that we need to show compassion. We need to provide food, shelter and healthcare to one who is so down on their luck. And in a vacuum, it would be tough to disagree. But one has to wonder at what point our benevolence might become counter-productive, thereby enabling such self-destructive choices.
Bob Seger once sang that "life is like a big river – sink or swim depends on you." So true. Where some see victims and survivors, others see winners and losers. More often than not, it’s a result of personal choices. It’s a lesson I plan to teach my kids. And this tale of two women is certain to be part of the curriculum.
=============
Note: This piece generated a lot of feedback, both pro and con. I addressed the negative response in the piece that can be read here.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)